2018 (11) TMI 730

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e manufacture of galvanised steel parts of transmission towers. During the course of investigation, it was found that the appellant was engaged in the activity of galvanization, which amounted to manufacture. Therefore, the appellant was liable to pay duty on the activity of galvanization. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to demand duty on the ground that the appellant did not pay duty on the activity of galvanization for the period February, 2005 to April, 2007 and for the period May, 2007 to January, 2010 on the ground that the appellant was sending their product to the job work for the purpose of galvanization and the appellant had undertaken the recourse of Notification No.214/86-CE. In that circumstance, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is liable to pay duty. Further, the appellant has deliberately availed the Notification No.214/86-CE by undertaking payment of duty on the galvanization activity undertaken by the job worker, in that circumstance, the appellant is required to pay duty. 5. Heard and considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find the appellant is contesting the demands on two grounds:- (i) The appellant was under the bonafide belief for the period upto April, 2007 that the activity of galvanization does not amount to manufacture, therefore, the demand for the impugned period is barred by limitation. (ii) Post April, 2007, the activity of galvanization undertaken by the job worker, therefore, the job .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y, they were not required to file undertaking under Notification No.214/86- CE. In that circumstance, the appellant has committed fraud with the department by filing the undertaking under Notification No.214/86-CE. As the appellant has filed undertaking to pay duty on the activity of galvanization done by the job worker, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay duty for the period May, 2007 to January, 2010. In that circumstance, the demand for the said period is also confirmed and penalty imposed on the appellant is also confirmed. 9. The case law relied upon by the appellant has no support to the appellant as the appellant has played the fraud with the Revenue by not paying duty on their activity of galvanization by concealing/suppressi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X